Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 214)
MONDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2004
COMMISSIONER ERKKI
LIIKANEN AND
MR NICHOLAS
BURGE
Q200 Dr Harris: Just let me get this
right: one substance/one registration is not required in order
to reduce animal testing because all data on animal testing has
to be shared anyway.
Commissioner Liikanen: Yes.
Q201 Dr Harris: So those who are
calling for one substance/one registration, should not use to
support that, whether obligatory or to be encouraged, the requirement/the
need/the desire to reduce animal testing, because that is going
to happen anyway.
Commissioner Liikanen: The question
became very complicated. Can you repeat the final part of your
question.
Q202 Dr Harris: The British Government
have said that the point of them promoting one substance/one registration
is primarily reducing animal testing. You have just said that,
regardless of whether there is one substance/one registration,
it is going to happen anyway.
Commissioner Liikanen: Okay, I
give that to Mr Burge.
Q203 Dr Harris: Did you understand?
Mr Burge: I did understand. Essentially
you are right. Because the animal data is only one part of the
information that we would require for the registration, that is
the part obviously that we have made in the proposal compulsory.
The other parts of the dossier that need to be put together (for
example, the chemical safety reports, and other information about
volumes, uses, and so on) can be brought together in a voluntary
way, under consortia, and we would encourage consortia, but it
is not compulsory. So I think the answer to your question is yes.
Q204 Dr Harris: Finallyand
I am just looking at the issue of animal testingit has
been suggested by some that actually there will not be a big increasein
fact, some would argue hardly any increasein animal testing.
Is that wishful thinking by WWF? If that is the received view
by the population, will there be outrage if expectations are not
realistic when, after a few years, it is clear that there is a
lot of animal testing going on?
Commissioner Liikanen: For that
reason, the review in six years is very helpful. Because really
the number of the substances which has been registered by that
time is still relatively limited, even though their part of the
volume, total volume, is very high. Let's say if opinions went
in a different direction than we expected, that is a good moment
to look at it. Normally, of course, it should be an arithmetical
assessment how many of these animal tests you need, when you count
the substances, and then that part of the data it is obligatory
to share.
Q205 Dr Harris: But do you think
there is a risk that the public is not going to expect a big increase
and in fact there may well be a big increase?
Commissioner Liikanen: I cannot
make such an assessment now. I have no data or no knowledge which
gives me the possibility to make an assessment that it would be
essentially higher or essentially lower, neither higher nor lower.
Q206 Dr Harris: All the submissions
we have had for our inquiry have said: "Animal testing bad.
Very important not to be a big increase." Do you think someone
out there ought to be arguing that to be realistic it is not only
necessary but a good thing to have, when it is the only approach
to have this system. If so, if someone should be advocating or
defending it, who should be doing that? I have not found anyone
who has said, "So be it."
Commissioner Liikanen: I have
been running another file which I could draw to your attention
which was animal testing on cosmetics. I would never opt for that
solution if there is anything else available. Then we come, at
the last phase, to something which is critical for human health
and safety, which cannot be tested by any other means, you are
in big trouble. Then you should be able to turn to animal testing.
I know that everybody does not share this opinion because there
are some who say that even in that case it is better to test with
human beings than with animals, but that is not my position. If
there is absolutely, in the last resort, nothing else available,
this possibility is better than others. This one to 10 tonnes,
I already mentioned, I proposed to delete that last animal test
from that area, though people who are responsible for health and
safety at work say that actually you cannot do that; that is especially
important for studying the small volumes, the critical ones.
Q207 Chairman: It will be essential,
will it not, to know the inherent properties of these chemicals?physical
and chemical dose-response counts and so on, doing basic research,
as it were. What is the Commission doing about getting the work
done at that level?
Commissioner Liikanen: In basic
research?
Q208 Chairman: Yes.
Commissioner Liikanen: Of course
there we have major bodies, the Joint Research Centre, with Mr
Busquin, and Ispra in that area, which is, let's say, a high quality
research centrenot huge in science, but well connected
with the research community.
Q209 Chairman: Alternatives to animal
experimentation
Commissioner Liikanen: In that
area, we have particular parts of our research programme which
are related to that, so we are supported by research programme
efforts to create validated alternative testing solutions.
Q210 Chairman: And that goes for
toxicology studies too.
Commissioner Liikanen: Yes.
Q211 Chairman: You have basic research
being funded.
Commissioner Liikanen: Yes.
Q212 Chairman: My next question is
about the compliance business. Does uneven compliance across the
EU worry you and keep you awake at nights?
Commissioner Liikanen: I have
been now in this city for nine years and there is one issue on
which all Member States agree: "My country is the only one
which complies with the EU legislation, the others are all cheating."
That is everywhere the same positionfrom my country to
yours.
Q213 Dr Harris: So there is objective
evidence!
Commissioner Liikanen: Yes. In
that area, of course, we have a very strong tool for the Commissionalthough
it is not a tool that people always likeand that is the
infringement procedure. We have formal possibilities to open the
infringement procedure by the letter of formal notice, reasoned
opinion and finally taken to court. We do that without emotion.
That is the real tool in that area and we must be extremely strict.
Q214 Chairman: Commissioner, we said
we would finish before four to let you get on to your next enjoyable
pursuit. Thank you very much indeed for giving us the time and
being so frank, open and helpful in your replies. It will help
our report very much.
Commissioner Liikanen: Thank you
very much. I am very impressed with the hard work you have done
on this file. It is very important to get things right. The Commission
took a decisionof course we are always open but, I mean,
in this issue, particularlywith an open mind to follow
the development relating to the procedure. Also still you learn
something we should take into account, so that all the participation
of the House of Commons and other respective bodies is welcome.
If you have ever questions, Nick Burge, who has been one of the
key drafters of the package is always available and the others
too. Thank you very much.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
|